I know that many of you would say that it doesn't really matter what "hackers" think about Google Search, that all that matters is that the majority of the non-tech-savvy users still think Internet == Google. Well, let's talk again in 5 years.
I know that many of you would say that it doesn't really matter what "hackers" think about Google Search, that all that matters is that the majority of the non-tech-savvy users still think Internet == Google. Well, let's talk again in 5 years.
Today I avoid Google search at all costs, and use it mainly to find Wikipedia pages or to search Reddit.
The Googlers blame SEO and there is some truth to that; but Google has on retainer a huge stable of the world’s best-paid engineers, and still couldn’t be bothered to invest in their flagship service.
LLMs are probably even better suited for monetisation since they have a better understanding of what people want, so a better ad can be shown that is more likely to be clicked.
Do you think people were losing their shit when ChatGPT went into bing simply because web search gets better/easier? No - people were losing their shit because it meant the ads in search are going to be turbo-charged and so that is why the share prices are surging (GOOG up 40% over last 6 months): more ad revenue from "better" ads shown to users.
Hopefully, the future will completely prune intrusive, non-consensual advertising completely and any companies that inject thoughts into our minds will fail.
For some problems. For many more you don't need a "product" at all but advertising still wants to sell you one.
> that is a natural and ethical time to include advertisers into the equation
Not at all. Ads means showing the product of whoever is paying the most or at least preferring paying products over others. Ad-free suggestions means showing the product best suited for the task. If those two match you are defrauding the advertiser by making them pay to show what you would have shown without ads. If they don't match you are degrading the service for the users.
You can do it, I believe in you.
Google used to be amazing. If you remembered a set of words that were on a page, you could enter those words and it would find matching pages. It’s been broken for years and keeps getting more broken.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22may+have+been+less+attrac...
I just took a random snippet from Gergely's blog and using quotes I found it.
Look there's many issues with Google Search in 2023, but these nitpicks that aren't neccesarily true aren't productive to the conversation.
https://i.ibb.co/D8VfKxc/75-FC1-FC6-DFD7-4-E2-A-A717-DBD8463...
As I said, I use that operator all the time and it works. I’d be the first to complain when it doesn’t. For instance, the - operator stopped working in YouTube a while ago, unfortunately.
They were obviously wrong.
Then Chrome happened. If Google doesn't change some fundamental things, they'll be the next one to fall for similar reasons.
I'd be less concerned for them if I didn't see signs of decline with Android as well. It is a key component for them to control.
https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/worldwid...
There were "tiny upticks" but, going slowly and steadily, in August 2008 Firefox had gained about 30-33% and IE was down to about 60%. And then (September 2008) Chrome happened.
A spyware and ads company fooling devs and users alike.
> “How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.
> “Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”
It felt like that’s how IE lost its dominance.
The most recent game being played is language, a game that Google has played alone, until now.
Doom & gloom talk about Google 5 years ago was probably unjustified and rightfully dismissed. Today, I'm not so sure about that.
I needed some somewhat obscure API information recently, and ChatGPT had it -- a testament to how much ChatGPT really is just a compression of "everything ever digitised"
We’ve had it come up with solutions using entirely made up functions. They had names that sounded like something Microsoft would’ve put into .Net, but they were entirely made up. As in, they had never existed in any version of .Net ever.
So as much as I like it, I’m treating it with more caution than google results. Honestly though, most of the time it’s frankly faster to just read the damn manual and figure out things for yourself. I don’t say that as some sort of anti-prompt-programming purist, but wading through GPT responses is as about as hopeless as wading through the gazillion medium, dev.to, stack overflow and whatever else people post their useless stuff on. 10 years ago if I needed to do some obscure Sharepoint programming (waaaaaay out of my field) I could realistically make something work with the help of Google, today the same thing is frankly completely impossible.
Admittedly that was on GPT3, I haven't tried GPT4 as I can't afford it at the moment. No doubt its better, but I'm not sure how much so.
That's the nature of associative statistics -- and why this talk of "hallucination" is more marketing PR.
We hallucinate in that our reconstructions of our environment can be caused by internal states (eg., dreaming) -- whereas veridical perceptual states are usually caused directly by the environment.
Here, it's states (ie., the statistical averaging process over its training data) is NEVER caused veridically -- ie., its prompts are never caused by the environment.
Those correct-sounding answers are often actually correct, but this is more coincidence than design. Anything it says is suspect, and should be fact-checked.
Insofar as it isn't just a regurgitation of "the better ebooks, blogs and docs", the worse it is.
This is why, when prompting ChatGPT, i'm more often aiming to have it use examples (etc.) that have a high likelyhood of exact data in its training set.
Consider eg., the prompt, "write tic-tac-toe in javascript using html and canvas" to "write duck hunt in javascript using html and canvas"
The latter is extremely hard to get out of it, with many prompts -- the former, immediate and perfect.
Why? because there's many examples of tic-tac-toe.
I don't get this problem. Google search doesn't give you answers, it's not reliable, and you still have to double check the answers your.
Remember that? Any information found on the internet used to be assumed to phony too.
ChatGPT is just a frontend UI and refers to two different models (and different tunings of these models over time I guess).
GPT3.5 is kind of useful but it makes up stuff just enough that you can't really trust it and spend so much time verifying it's hard to say whether you saved time vs the old way. But it still produces mostly not made up stuff.
GPT-4, still not perfect, is a game changer though. It's what people generally mean when they talk about ChatGPT. There's far far less hallucination going on (not zero though). There's several ways to access it: phind, bing, ChatGPT. But I still give ChatGPT is the best.
I never really liked DDG or Bing. They both suffer from the same SEO gaming that Google does.
There are also a number of smaller search engines that have been posted to HN that are kind of interesting for certain niches.
I think what will happen over the next five years is that instead of Google being the one-stop shop for search, it will be a number of smaller players + the different chatbot engines like ChatGPT and Bard and others.
Every time new fad appears, I say this. And I say the same about chatgpt. Never failed so far.
So yea, let's talk again in 5 years.
If the way to make it work is to use "site:", to me that doesn't count as "searching the web" anymore.